BOARD01876

• Board Meeting Date: 7/23/2001
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Basin Issues - Ruedi Reservoir - Proposed Annual Contract to Deliver 10,825 AF to Endangered Fish in 15-Mile Reach
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

Agenda Item 23h
July 23-24, 200 I Board Meeting
Page 2 of3

1. Article 7b needs to be revised to reflect that the Ruedi operations' meeting .a
was held in Carbondale in May of ihis year and that the September and ..
October targets will be the same for 2001.
2. Article 8 notes a new "Categorical Exclusion Checklist" was used this year.

The proposed contract remains for only one year while negotiations on the long-term
contract continue. The interests involved only supported previous I-year contracts so
long as it was clearly understood that the issues listed below would be addressed during
the negotiation of the long-term contract. The major issues include:

. Ruedi Reservoir repayment costs and whether or not the water made available to
endangered fish should be paid for. Ifpaymeht is required, who should pay and how
should payment be accomplished? Assurances are needed that we are not increasing
costs to other water users with contracts that provide water to the endangered fish.
Progress: In 1998, the Recovery Program, via the Service, paid O&M costs pursuant
to the contract in the amount of $61,919. · USBR provided the O&M costs from
appropriations for the use of the 10,825 AF il( 2000, and will again this year.
. Assurances to the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project east and west slope water users and
repayment entities for all Section 7 consultations on the Project that there will be no
loss to them in water yield from the Project rior any increase in Project repayment or
operating costs. Progress: Pursuant to' the amended biological opinion the
December 1999 Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Upper Colorado River will
take precedence over the amended biological. opinion and thus assure there would be ...
no loss in project yield. ..
. Are the operating guidelines in Article 7 concerning Ruedi release rates and reservoir
elevations appropriate or should they be revi~ed in order to allow more flexibility to
use Ruedi water? All parties understand that release rates could be more responsive
to biological parameters rather than recreatiQnal (wadeability) factors as they are at
present. The parties also understand the poteutial impacts to the local economy of the
Fryingpan Basin and continue to look for win-win solutions to this issue. Any
changes to the environmental commitments ,already made, or substantial changes to
the preferred alternative discussed in the Recprd of Decision could create the need for
supplemental NEPA compliance meaSures. i Progress: This matter remains under
discussion, but no operational changes are c~rrently proposed.
. Do the contracts for endangered fish release~ require site specific NEP A compliance
and possibly mitigation? Progress: This m4tter is addressed in part by Article 8 of
the contract.
. What is the overall strategy for managing ,flows in the 15-Mile Reach? How do
releases from Ruedi fit with the CWCB in~trearn flow protections for the IS-Mile
Reach, releases from Green Mountain ReseIvoir given the settlement in the Orchard
Mesa Check case and with other pieces of$.e Recovery Program like Grand Valley
Water Management, Coordinated Reservoir Operations and other available water
sources? There is a desire to have a clear u~derstanding of the objectives trying to be
achieved in the 15-Mile Reach. PrQgreSs: The December 1999 Programmatic
Biological Opinion for the Upper Colorado fUlly addresses these issues. e
Furthermore, a display diagram has been prepared that illustrates the various
sources of water available to the 15-mile reach.